Attachment to Independent Case Review Report For CDRU # 6365 Case file # 95-252441.
Matenal Examiner: Malone (RO)
Remarks:
Case resulted in guilty plea, no transcript available.
CRM - 3240
INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT
Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson
Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fibers
Review commenced at: 9:30AM (Time), 11/08/01 (Date)
File #: 95-252441
Laboratory #{s): 21112067
Examiner(s) & Symbols
Reviewed Not Reviewed Reviewed Not Reviewed RQ xO Oo a Oo UF O xO Oo O D Oo o O Materials Reviewed Trial testimony transcript(s) of: not available Testimony Date(s): Pages: Laboratory Repori(s): Laboratory Number: 21112067 Date: Nov 26, 1982 Laboratory Number: Date: Laboratory Number: Date: Examiner Bench Notes of: RQ and unknown technician
Laboratory Number; 2111067
CRM - 3241
Co Was any other material reviewed? XO Yes No
If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: §submiting agency letter dated 11-8-82
Results of Review
File#: 95-25244] Itern or Specimen # Reviewed: Q1-Q45, K1-K6
Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:
: additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses
1} Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of ihe original examination(s)? OYes ONo XO Unable to Determine
2) Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory report(s) supported and adequately documented in
the bench notes? 0 Yes XONo © Unable to Determine
Review of Teshmony:
Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
XO Transcript not available.
3) Testimony consistent with the laboratory report(s)? O¥Yes oNo OO Unable to Determine
4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes? OYes GNo = O Unable to Determine
5} Testimony within bounds of exammer’s expertise? GOYes No Unable to Determine
Page 2 of 3
Initials: mh
. | Comments
{Set forth by above question #, if applicable, Use “Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed)
File #: 95-25244]
#1; With microscopic hair comparison, one cannot determine from the notes that the examination was conducted
in an appropriate manner.
#2: Documentation is poor. The notes are not dated or initialed and are in pencil instead of ink. Abbreviations
are used that are difficult to interpret. Some of the hair recovered from the Q items are marked as "NSFC". Presumably, this meaus "Not Suitable for Comparison”, but there is no documentation as to why these hair are
unsuitable, The technician does not document the recovery of hair from any of the Q items as stated in the report.
Review completed at: 10:30AM (Time), 11/08/01 (Date) Total time spent conducting review {to nearest 1/4 hour): 0.50 hr.
I hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review are fully documented on this report consisting of a total o 3
11/08/2061
(Signature} (Date)
Page 3 of 3
Initials: Sue